Good lord, that comment is ignorant. By that argument there would never be ANY price competition. And yet it happens ALL THE TIME. Therefore your argument is false.By your argument prices would continually be going down. And yet prices, in general, rise ALL THE TIME. Therefore your argument is false. Pricing isn't a race to the bottom.
Absolutely false.
When adjusted for inflation, many things are much cheaper today than 10, 20, 30, 50 years ago.
And many things in actual dollars are cheaper.
By your argument prices would continually be going down. And yet prices, in general, rise ALL THE TIME. Therefore your argument is false. Pricing isn't a race to the bottom.
Too bad you didn't bother to read my argument. Nowhere did I claim that prices would be continually going down. I said there was price competition. And I reiterate my statement that anyone who doesn't understand this concept is too ignorant to be involved in serious discussions involving economics.
To help, though, I'll give you a tiny primer. When an expense (e.g. taxes) involved in creating a service or commodity goes down, the developer of that commodity has several options: they can pocket the increased revenues (e.g. increase profits, invest in infrastructure, raise wages, etc.), lower prices, or both. Companies that engage in competition (non-monopolies) many times choose to lower prices in order to increase market share thereby increasing their total revenues. Competitors will frequently lower their own prices in order to avoid losing market share.
Attempts by an industry to avoid this competition(collusion, price fixing, etc.) are illegal though most of the time the laws are unnecessary in any commoditized market.
I hope this has relieved some ignorance. You may have to use a dictionary for the more technical terms.